To grasp Trump’s latest indictment, explore the 6 charge types.

Breaking News: ‍Former President Donald Trump Indicted

Late ⁤Monday, Fulton County District Attorney ‌Fani Willis charged former President⁤ Donald Trump and 18 other⁤ defendants ‌in a 98-page indictment ‍that included ⁤a⁢ total of 41⁣ different counts.

The defendants are already fighting back, with Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, seeking to remove the case to federal court based ‍on a ⁢statute that​ protects federal officials from state court prosecution for official conduct. More counteroffensives will likely follow, with other former federal officials, including Trump, presumably also ​seeking removal ‌to‌ federal court, ‌while the remaining defendants will​ probably expeditiously move to dismiss the indictment on a variety of ​grounds.

To get a handle on the indictment and⁤ to⁢ stay current with the various developments, it ⁤is helpful to ⁣put ⁤the charges into one of six buckets, starting with the biggest one: the alleged RICO⁤ conspiracy.

Bucket 1: RICO

The Racketeer Influenced and​ Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)‌ count runs some 70 pages and says all 19 defendants, “while associated with an enterprise, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and⁤ participate in, directly⁢ and indirectly, such enterprise⁣ through a pattern of‌ racketeering activity.” The indictment next defines the “enterprise” as⁤ “a group‌ of individuals associated in‌ fact,” who “had connections and relationships with one another” and “functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose⁤ of ​achieving ⁢the objectives of the enterprise,” which ‌Willis maintains was “to unlawfully change the outcome of‍ the⁢ election in favor of Trump.”

There are ⁤several ‌problems with the RICO ⁣count, most fundamentally, as Andrew McCarthy⁤ explained in an enlightening article, RICO requires an “enterprise,” which, while not necessarily ⁤a formal entity, needs⁣ to be an identifiable group.⁤ The RICO crime, then, is‌ “being a member of ‌the enterprise ​that commits crimes, not​ the ⁢commission of any particular crime.”

But there must be some sort of “enterprise,” and here Willis conflates the objective — keeping​ Trump in power — with “the enterprise.” “It was that objective, and not the sustaining​ of any group, that brought them together; and once​ that⁤ objective was‌ attained or conclusively ‍defeated, the group — to the dubious extent it really was an identifiable group — ‌would (and⁤ did) melt away,” ‌McCarthy wrote. ‍It’s a “good sign that you’re not dealing with a RICO enterprise,” the former federal prosecutor explained.

Without an “enterprise,” there can‍ be no RICO crime, and⁢ the‍ facts ⁣alleged in the indictment are such that the defendants will likely soon ⁣seek dismissal of‍ that count.⁢ Now, Georgia​ law differs from federal law on RICO, and there ‍is no saying​ how the state court will interpret ⁣its own RICO statute, ‍but from a​ legal perspective, ⁣the claim is exceedingly weak.

The second fundamental problem ​with the RICO⁤ count is factual: Willis​ portrays the defendants ‌as trying ⁣to unlawfully change the election in Trump’s favor, ⁣but the ‍many actions​ Trump‌ and others took involved legal‍ proceedings⁣ and efforts ⁤to convince ​the legislative bodies to use their authority to address what the defendants saw as a fatally flawed election. A court is unlikely to toss the complaint on⁤ this ground, however, with factual disputes ones only a jury can⁤ resolve.

However, if ⁢the court ​holds, as it appears ⁤it‌ should, that the RICO count‍ fails as​ a matter of law because there was no “enterprise,” then that factual dispute is⁤ irrelevant. Likewise, the 160-some ⁢“acts” Willis⁢ included in the indictment — everything ⁤from Trump declaring victory on Nov. 4 to tweeting that followers should watch⁢ a television newscast — allegedly in furtherance of the “RICO” conspiracy become irrelevant.

Bucket 2: Alternate‌ Electors

The second-biggest bucket‍ concerns the ⁢counts related to the naming of alternative ‌Trump electors. ⁢The crimes alleged here range from soliciting ‍individuals to violate⁣ their⁣ oaths ‌of office, to conspiring to file‍ false statements or documents,⁣ to forgery. Counts 2, 6, 8-19, 23, and 37 alleged these and other crimes against various defendants all arising out ‌of Republicans appointing an alternative slate of Trump ⁤electors who ​would vote for Trump in the event he prevailed in⁤ his then-pending Georgia lawsuit.

While the​ legacy media continue to frame these individuals as “fake electors,” as I’ve ⁣previously detailed, that ⁤is fake news. Rather, legal precedent ‌indicates⁢ that alternative electors should be named to protect⁤ a candidate⁢ challenging the outcome of an election, as Trump was in Georgia ‌and elsewhere. That is precisely ⁤what Democrats did in⁢ Hawaii in‌ 1960 when Richard Nixon had⁣ been⁢ declared the victor in ⁤the⁢ state, ‌but ​John F. Kennedy’s‌ court contest remained⁤ viable.

As a matter ⁤of law, these counts should all be dismissed because Republicans naming ⁤alternate electors was not a crime ‍— ​no​ matter⁣ how much the press wants ‌you to believe otherwise.

Bucket 3: ‍Petitioning the Government for​ Redress

The crimes charged in Counts 5, 28,⁢ 38, and 39 ​fit into a third​ bucket ⁣that consists ⁣of efforts by Trump and others to petition ​the⁣ government⁤ for‍ redress. ⁢Here,⁣ the crimes charged‌ include‍ solicitation ​of violations of oath by public officers‍ and the‍ making of false statements during those efforts, but the ⁤common theme is that the defendants sought to have Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger or the Georgia legislature address Trump’s allegations of ⁢voting irregularities‍ or⁢ fraud.

There is nothing ⁢criminal, ​however, in asking⁤ the secretary of⁣ state to use his authority to investigate and ​respond⁢ to voting irregularities or ⁤to ask ‍the legislature to call a special session​ to⁣ name Trump electors. On the contrary, ‍those ⁤activities would seemingly be protected by the constitutional guarantee ⁢of the right to petition the government for redress.

Bucket ⁢4: False Statements

The fourth bucket holds numerous ⁢counts against a variety of defendants with the common theme⁤ being‌ false statements charges. ⁢Count 27 alleged false statements were included in one of Trump’s election lawsuits, but lawyers are entitled to rely on information provided‌ for ​others, ⁣making this count ⁢weak. Counts ⁤7, 24, 25, and 26 all‌ charged individual defendants⁤ with ⁣making false statements⁤ to Georgia House or ​Senate‌ committees. ⁢The main issue here​ will‌ be whether the defendants made⁤ the statements knowing they⁤ were false.

Count 22 charges an attempt to make a false statement and concerns a letter DOJ lawyer‌ Jeff Clark drafted and recommended⁢ be sent to the Georgia legislature. ‌As ⁣I previously detailed, however, there was no impropriety in Clark’s drafting of that letter. Clark ⁣will also likely‍ succeed in having⁢ the case against him removed⁣ to ⁣federal court⁣ and then dismissed.

Counts 40 and 41 both involve charges of​ lying as well, with Count 40 alleging one defendant ⁤lied to Fulton County investigators and⁢ Count 41 alleging‍ perjury before⁢ a grand jury.‍ Given the target ​on these defendants’ backs, it’s difficult to believe⁣ they knowingly lied, but that question‍ may ‌end up being ​left to a jury to decide.

Bucket 5: Communications Related to Ruby Freeman

Counts 20, 21, ⁣30, ⁣and 31 all involve charges concerning efforts to supposedly influence the testimony of Ruby​ Freeman, who was an​ election worker at the State Farm Arena. Here, the theory seems to be that some of ‍the defendants attempted to pressure Freeman to lie ⁢about what happened during⁤ the vote counting. ​Again, it may be ‌left to⁤ a jury to decide this ‍issue.

Bucket⁣ 6: Accessing Voting Machines and Election Data

The final category of charges involves efforts by Sidney Powell and others to​ allegedly illegally access voting machines and election results. ‍Counts 32-36 allege various crimes related ​to those efforts,‌ including‍ conspiracy to commit election fraud by tampering with machines. Once the defendants charged in those counts respond, it will⁤ be easier to assess the criminal theories proffered and ‌any weakness in the claims.

For now, though, watch for the⁤ federal court’s holding on ⁤whether Meadows, ⁢Clark, Trump, and ⁤potentially ​others ⁢have the right to ⁣remove​ the case to federal court. Simultaneously, expect the other defendants to ⁢seek dismissal of all or part of the ‍indictment, likely narrowing⁣ this criminal case down substantially.